licence?!

[DREAMGLASS]

how do people get away with things like this?
http://www.sumosam.co.uk/spam-in-a-tshirt-7013-0.html
does this guys bit of waffle cover him legally

Isn't SPAM just unsolicited email? Not quite sure why that design would present a problem, UNLESS it was featuring a tin of something hated by many adults of a certain age?

[JSR]

how do people get away with things like this?
http://www.sumosam.co.uk/spam-in-a-tshirt-7013-0.html
does this guys bit of waffle cover him legally

I would suggest that that guy is on very shaky ground. According to http://www.spam.com/about/internet.aspx, what he's got on that t-shirt is trademarked and, by offering it for sale, he's infringing that trademark. It would be amusing to see what happens if Hormel Foods LLC was sent a link to that webpage. Unlike with copyright, a trademark owner must protect their trademark or risk losing it so Hormel *will* go after that t-shirt seller if someone tells them.

As stated on the Hormel Foods website, use of the word "spam" in lower-case and when referring to UCE (unsolicited commercial mail) is not infringement - but use of the word in uppercase and/or their product image *is* infringement.

In those terms, that T-Shirt is infringing Hormel Foods' trademark if the seller doesn't have a license to print.

On the subject of the disclaimer on the t-shirt seller's website, that is not good enough. You can't copy someone else's work, acknowledge that you don't have permission to do so, and then sell it regardless. It's not for the infringer to determine how the work can be used - only the holder of intellectual property rights has the right to decide that.

All the t-shirt seller has to do is to make it say "Spam", or "spam", and they'd be in the clear.

[DREAMGLASS]

I guess the real issue should be, why would someone actually want to buy a tee with just the word SPAM on it in the first place? There is no humour, no statement, no protest and no point in it. If it doesn't amuse, entertain, or educate, then what's it all about?

[Ian M]

how do people get away with things like this?
http://www.sumosam.co.uk/spam-in-a-tshirt-7013-0.html
does this guys bit of waffle cover him legally

I think there are a few items on there a lawyer would love to see. It really doesn't matter what kind of disclaimer you write as this wouldn't stand up in court at all. I did notice though that some of his logo use were for companies that have long gone & a dead celeb isn't going to sue many people are they.

Sometimes if you approach a company in the right way it is quite amazing what you can get from them so long as you are always honest & up front with them. In the last few months I have dealt with a major car producer in Japan asking to use an old name of theirs & they have bent over backwards with help etc. They said they are happy that someone is keeping alive their old cars from years ago & they are very proud of their heritage as they want to show people they haven't just been around since the mid 1980's.

Ian

[DREAMGLASS]

I think the disclaimers that many sellers have on their sites give them some sort of minimal protection against 'passing off'. In that context, no customer can claim they thought they were buying an 'authorised item' when the site clearly says they are not. What the disclaimers cannot do however, is give protection against copyright theft, or use of someone else's registered trademark.

The professional bootleggers out there, go for high volume, fast buck copies of the likes of Disney, football clubs, current pop stars and film characters. They bang them out quickly at Sunday markets, car boot sales, railway stations and anywhere there is a crowd. The customers are happy to buy fake goods at a fraction of the price. Part of the problem with that whole trade though, is that the license holders themselves fuel the problem by charging ridiculously high prices for those goods in the first place. £50 plus for an 'official' tee is excessive by anyone's standards.

Whilst I'm not going to delve into the 'guilty by degree' debate, I do sometimes look at it from the consumers viewpoint. Where no 'licensed' alternative exists, the consumer is often given wider choice by traders who have different interpretations of 'the line'.

[JSR]

Where no 'licensed' alternative exists, the consumer is often given wider choice by traders who have different interpretations of 'the line'.

I understand that from the consumer's perspective, but I also understand the perspective of the copyright/trademark holder.

For example, if you've built up a respected brand or a highly-regarded reputation, you might decide not to licence your design/reputation for printing onto (for example) ashtrays because you are vehemently opposed to smoking. It's not for some quick buck merchant to decide to print up ashtrays just because there aren't any.

Perhaps you want to protect your brand/reputation by specifically denying your product from being printed on cheap shoddy t-shirts because you're vehemently opposed to third world sweatshops. That doesn't mean some trader at a flea-market should be allowed to print your product on cheap t-shirts from a sweatshop.

I don't intend to be argumentative here, I'm just saying that there may well be reasons why there isn't the "wider choice" that the consumer might want. Only the holder of the copyright/trademark has the right to decide how wide "the line" of products is. The infringer has no rights whatsoever, and that's as it should be.

[DREAMGLASS]

I am just trying to highlight why the trade itself exists, rather than rationalise the actions of others.

There are those who set out to deliberately copy official merchandise (professional bootleggers), those who have their own definition of where 'the line' is (wanderers), those who are generally legitimate (toe dippers) and those that are blatantly unaware of things like copyright and trademarks (rank amateurs).

You can go onto virtually any print related sites and find questions like "How do I take images off Google and put them on a tee"? With the exception of the professional bootleggers, I truly believe there is a whole swathe of producers that are blissfully unware they are even breaking any laws. I have my own idea for a tee shirt for those unaware folks "Instant idiot - just add heat press".

[JSR]

I have my own idea for a tee shirt for those unaware folks "Instant idiot - just add heat press".

Great one! Lol. :biggrin::biggrin:

[John G]

Sorry "Dreamglass" I've already printed that shirt so its trademarked - any associated fees should be send immediately.